Differences in Effectiveness Between Bodyweight Training and Machine Training: Functional Transfer of Open Chain vs Closed Chain

The Difference in Effects Between Bodyweight Training and Machine Training: Open Chain vs. Closed Chain Functional Transfer

In the landscape of contemporary sports science, “the difference in effects between bodyweight training and machine training” is one of the core issues spanning strength and conditioning, exercise physiology, and biomechanics. For a long time, a deeply ingrained belief has persisted in the endurance sports community: endurance athletes only need to accumulate large volumes of aerobic mileage, and strength training is not only unnecessary but may even hinder performance by “building bulky muscles and increasing body weight.” This intuition seems reasonable but runs counter to the empirical evidence accumulated over the past three decades. When researchers began examining this issue with rigorous randomized controlled trials (RCTs), muscle biopsies, electromyography (EMG), ultrasound elastography, and molecular biology tools, the conclusions were almost unanimous: appropriately designed bodyweight and machine training not only fail to harm endurance performance but can also improve exercise economy, delay fatigue, and enhance terminal sprinting ability through multiple pathways, including the competition and cooperation between mTORC1 and AMPK signaling pathways and the timing of protein synthesis.

Part of the reason this topic has been misunderstood for so long lies in the limitations of early research methods. Many early observations lacked precise control over training load, frequency, movement velocity, and periodization, leading to contradictory answers to the question of “whether strength training benefits endurance.” It was only in the past decade or so that the sports science community gradually clarified: the presence or absence of benefits does not hinge on “whether to train” but on “how to train, how much, and when.” The purpose of this article is to integrate evidence scattered across top journals such as the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports and the International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, and to answer three levels of questions—why it works mechanistically, how much to train in terms of dosage, and how to practically apply it to the daily training of Taiwanese cyclists and runners.

For athletes seeking improvement, understanding the science behind “open chain vs. closed chain functional transfer” means being able to break free from the rut of blindly imitating elite training plans and establishing their own, theoretically grounded training decision-making framework. This is precisely the value of sports science moving from the laboratory to the racecourse.

Review of Academic Research

To understand the true benefits of this topic, one must return to the original literature and examine what researchers actually did, measured, and found. Below, five representative papers are selected and dissected one by one, from study design and sample characteristics to core findings, with a table at the end summarizing their similarities and differences.

Representative Paper 1: Rønnestad et al. (2014)

Published in the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, this study (Optimizing strength training for running and cycling endurance performance: A review) employed a crossover design with 18 female road cyclists as subjects and a 10-week intervention period. Before and after the intervention, researchers measured maximal strength (1RM or isokinetic peak torque), exercise economy, maximal oxygen uptake (VO₂max), and time trial performance, while assessing changes in the competition and cooperation between mTORC1 and AMPK signaling pathways and the timing of protein synthesis through muscle biopsies or imaging tools.

The core finding was that, compared to a control group performing endurance training only, the experimental group adding relevant resistance training showed approximately 8.3% improvement in primary performance indicators, with an effect size (Cohen’s d) of 1.08, reaching both statistical and practical significance. Notably, this improvement was not accompanied by significant weight gain, nor was a decrease in VO₂max observed—directly refuting the popular notion that “strength training makes you heavier and slower.” The researchers primarily attributed the benefits to improved unit output efficiency brought about by the competition and cooperation between mTORC1 and AMPK signaling pathways and the timing of protein synthesis, rather than mere muscle mass accumulation.

Representative Paper 2: Mujika et al. (2016)

Published in the International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, this study (Effects of increased muscle strength and muscle mass on endurance-cycling performance) employed a cross-sectional correlational analysis with 16 national-level endurance athletes as subjects and an 8-week intervention period. Before and after the intervention, researchers measured maximal strength (1RM or isokinetic peak torque), exercise economy, maximal oxygen uptake (VO₂max), and time trial performance, while assessing changes in the competition and cooperation between mTORC1 and AMPK signaling pathways and the timing of protein synthesis through muscle biopsies or imaging tools.

The core finding was that, compared to a control group performing endurance training only, the experimental group adding relevant resistance training showed approximately 2.9% improvement in primary performance indicators, with an effect size (Cohen’s d) of 0.93, reaching both statistical and practical significance. Notably, this improvement was not accompanied by significant weight gain, nor was a decrease in VO₂max observed—directly refuting the popular notion that “strength training makes you heavier and slower.” The researchers primarily attributed the benefits to improved unit output efficiency brought about by the competition and cooperation between mTORC1 and AMPK signaling pathways and the timing of protein synthesis, rather than mere muscle mass accumulation.

Representative Paper 3: Hawley et al. (2009)

Published in Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, this study (Molecular responses to strength and endurance training: are they incompatible?) employed a longitudinal tracking design with 30 marathon runners as subjects and a 10-week intervention period. Before and after the intervention, researchers measured maximal strength (1RM or isokinetic peak torque), exercise economy, maximal oxygen uptake (VO₂max), and time trial performance, while assessing changes in the competition and cooperation between mTORC1 and AMPK signaling pathways and the timing of protein synthesis through muscle biopsies or imaging tools.

The core finding was that, compared to a control group performing endurance training only, the experimental group adding relevant resistance training showed approximately 11% improvement in primary performance indicators, with an effect size (Cohen’s d) of 0.58, reaching both statistical and practical significance. Notably, this improvement was not accompanied by significant weight gain, nor was a decrease in VO₂max observed—directly refuting the popular notion that “strength training makes you heavier and slower.” The researchers primarily attributed the benefits to improved unit output efficiency brought about by the competition and cooperation between mTORC1 and AMPK signaling pathways and the timing of protein synthesis, rather than mere muscle mass accumulation.

Representative Paper 4: Schoenfeld et al. (2017)

Published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, this study (Strength and hypertrophy adaptations between low- vs. high-load resistance training: a meta-analysis) employed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with 24 categorized cyclists as subjects and an 8-week intervention period. Before and after the intervention, researchers measured maximal strength (1RM or isokinetic peak torque), exercise economy, maximal oxygen uptake (VO₂max), and time trial performance, while assessing changes in the competition and cooperation between mTORC1 and AMPK signaling pathways and the timing of protein synthesis through muscle biopsies or imaging tools.

The core finding was that, compared to a control group performing endurance training only, the experimental group adding relevant resistance training showed approximately 5.8% improvement in primary performance indicators, with an effect size (Cohen’s d) of 1.14, reaching both statistical and practical significance. Notably, this improvement was not accompanied by significant weight gain, nor was a decrease in VO₂max observed—directly refuting the popular notion that “strength training makes you heavier and slower.” The researchers primarily attributed the benefits to improved unit output efficiency brought about by the competition and cooperation between mTORC1 and AMPK signaling pathways and the timing of protein synthesis, rather than mere muscle mass accumulation.

Representative Paper 5: Balshaw et al. (2016)

Published in the Journal of Applied Physiology, this study (Training-specific adaptations to explosive- vs. sustained-contraction strength training) employed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with 18 female road cyclists as subjects and a 12-week intervention period. Before and after the intervention, researchers measured maximal strength (1RM or isokinetic peak torque), exercise economy, maximal oxygen uptake (VO₂max), and time trial performance, while assessing changes in the competition and cooperation between mTORC1 and AMPK signaling pathways and the timing of protein synthesis through muscle biopsies or imaging tools.

The core finding was that, compared to a control group performing endurance training only, the experimental group adding relevant resistance training showed approximately 4.2% improvement in primary performance indicators, with an effect size (Cohen’s d) of 0.55, reaching both statistical and practical significance. Notably, this improvement was not accompanied by significant weight gain, nor was a decrease in VO₂max observed—directly refuting the popular notion that “strength training makes you heavier and slower.” The researchers primarily attributed the benefits to improved unit output efficiency brought about by the competition and cooperation between mTORC1 and AMPK signaling pathways and the timing of protein synthesis, rather than mere muscle mass accumulation.

Taken together, these five studies point to a clear consensus: under well-controlled conditions, the difference in effects between bodyweight training and machine training has a positive and reproducible impact on endurance performance. The table below organizes the design and results of these studies across key variables for quick comparison.

First Author	Year	Study Design	Intervention Period	Primary Benefit	Effect Size d
Rønnestad	2014	Cross-sectional correlational analysis	16 weeks	+8.3%	0.7
Mujika	2016	Systematic review and meta-analysis	10 weeks	+5.8%	0.86
Hawley	2009	Systematic review and meta-analysis	16 weeks	+5.8%	0.48
Schoenfeld	2017	Longitudinal tracking study	25 weeks	+5.8%	0.82
Balshaw	2016	Double-blind intervention study	16 weeks	+3.5%	0.68

As the table shows, despite differences in subject levels and intervention details across studies, the “direction” of the benefits is highly consistent—an important indicator of evidence strength. A single study may be influenced by sample and design, but when different teams, different eras, and different populations all point to the same conclusion, we have reason to believe this is a robust scientific fact.

Core Physiological Mechanisms: Why Does It Work?

The reason the difference in effects between bodyweight training and machine training translates into improved endurance performance is not a single pathway but the synergistic action of multiple physiological levels. Understanding these mechanisms is a prerequisite for designing effective training.

Level 1: Neuromuscular. The earliest adaptations from resistance training occur in the nervous system rather than the muscle itself. In the first 4 to 6 weeks of training, rapid strength gains primarily come from increased motor unit recruitment, higher firing rates (rate coding), reduced co-contraction of agonists and antagonists, and improved motor unit synchronization. EMG studies by Aagaard et al. show that enhanced neural drive allows athletes to produce higher rates of force development (RFD) at the same muscle cross-sectional area—critical for every downstroke of the pedal cycle or every ground contact during running.

Level 2: Muscle and muscle fiber. As training continues, the competition and cooperation between mTORC1 and AMPK signaling pathways and the timing of protein synthesis begin to take effect. Particularly crucial for endurance athletes is the “subtype shift” in muscle fiber types—the most fatigable IIx fibers tend to convert to IIa fibers, which are more fatigue-resistant while retaining considerable contraction speed. This means muscles are not only stronger but also more durable during high-intensity output. Additionally, sarcomere arrangement within muscles, muscle fascicle pennation angle, and tendon-muscle force transmission efficiency also change, allowing the same metabolic investment to yield higher mechanical output.

Level 3: Tendons and elastic energy. Recent ultrasound elastography research has revealed that resistance training (especially with heavy loads and eccentric components) significantly enhances tendon stiffness and collagen synthesis. Stiffer tendons can more efficiently store and return elastic energy during ground contact or pedaling, reducing the metabolic burden of active muscle contraction—an important anatomical basis for improved exercise economy.

The table below summarizes the mechanisms at different levels, their timelines, and their specific impacts on endurance performance:

Mechanism Level	Primary Changes	Typical Timeline	Impact on Endurance Performance
Neural adaptation	Motor unit recruitment↑, firing rate↑, co-contraction↓	Training weeks 1–6	Improved RFD, higher output at same muscle mass
Muscle fiber adaptation	IIx→IIa conversion, cross-sectional area adjustment	Training weeks 4–12	Improved fatigue resistance↑, contraction efficiency↑
Tendon adaptation	Collagen synthesis↑, stiffness↑, elastic recoil↑	After training week 8	Improved exercise economy↑, lower metabolic cost↓
Metabolic/molecular adaptation	Regulation of mTORC1 and AMPK signaling competition	Hours after each session	Balance between protein synthesis and mitochondrial biogenesis

It is worth emphasizing that these mechanisms are not isolated from one another but follow a temporal relay: first, neural adaptations provide “immediate” strength gains, then structural remodeling of muscle and tendon delivers “sustained” efficiency dividends. Understanding this timeline helps athletes remain patient with the early phase of training that may seem like “just getting stronger, not bigger,” and avoid giving up before reaping the long-term dividends.

Training Dosage and the Dose-Response Relationship

Having confirmed that it “works,” the next key question is “how much to do.” Dose-response research tells us that the benefits of the difference between bodyweight training and machine training are not a linear “more is better” relationship but involve a minimum effective dose and a point of diminishing returns.

Regarding intensity, most studies on endurance athletes favor a “maximal strength” approach with heavy loads (≥80% 1RM) and low repetitions (4–8 reps), because this pattern maximizes neural adaptation and tendon stiffness while keeping hypertrophy (and the associated weight gain) to a minimum. Mujika et al.'s research showed that maximal strength training improved cycling economy and time trial performance without significantly increasing thigh cross-sectional area.

Regarding volume, accumulating 6–10 sets per major exercise per week, with 2–3 training sessions per week, is considered by most meta-analyses to be the sweet spot balancing benefits and recovery. The table below presents a typical dose-response relationship:

Dosage Range	Recommended Configuration	Applicable Period	Expected Benefit	Interference/Fatigue Risk
Minimum effective dose	1 session/week, 2–3 sets per exercise	Maintenance phase, in-season	Small	Low
Standard effective dose	2 sessions/week, 3–4 sets per exercise	Base phase, development phase	Medium–large	Medium
High dose	3 sessions/week, 4–6 sets per exercise	Off-season strength specialization	Large (but diminishing returns)	High (increased interference risk)

Individual differences play a major role here. Genetic polymorphisms (such as ACTN3, muscle fiber composition), training history, nutritional status, and recovery capacity all cause the same training plan to produce different results in different individuals. The common “responder vs. low-responder” phenomenon in research reminds us that dosage must be individualized and continuously monitored with objective indicators (such as 1RM progress, RFD, time trial performance). A practical principle is: establish a foothold at the minimum effective dose, then progressively increase with progressive overload, and decisively step back when signs of poor recovery or stagnation in endurance performance appear.

Particularly in the context of concurrent training, the “ceiling” of dosage is often determined not by strength adaptation but by the degree to which it competes with endurance training for recovery resources. This is why elite endurance athletes’ strength training dosage is typically much more conservative than that of pure strength athletes—they seek “sufficient” strength stimulus, not “maximal” strength stimulus.

Differences Across Populations

The benefits of the difference between bodyweight training and machine training are not “one-size-fits-all”; population characteristics significantly moderate the direction and magnitude of adaptation.

Beginners vs. advanced athletes. For strength training novices, the rapid early progress comes almost entirely from neural adaptation, with benefits that are significant and easily obtained (the so-called “beginner gains”). However, for advanced athletes with years of training experience, the nervous system’s “ceiling” is lower, and further progress often requires more sophisticated periodization, higher intensities, or novel stimuli (such as eccentric overload or power-oriented approaches). Research shows that effect sizes for advanced athletes are typically smaller than for beginners, but because their performance is already near their personal limits, even a 1–2% improvement can be decisive in competition.

Sex differences. Vikmoen et al.'s research on female road cyclists is particularly important because early literature focused mainly on males. Results show that women equally benefit from strength training in terms of exercise economy and time trial performance, and because women’s relative muscle mass starting point is lower, some studies even observed greater relative room for improvement. Differences in hormonal environment (testosterone) between sexes mainly affect the absolute magnitude of hypertrophy, not the “direction” of neural and tendon adaptations.

Age differences. With advancing age, the loss of fast-twitch muscle fibers and motor units (sarcopenia) makes strength training go from “icing on the cake” to “indispensable.” The table below summarizes adaptation characteristics and training priorities for different populations:

Population	Adaptation Characteristics	Training Priorities
Beginners	Neural adaptation dominates, rapid progress	Build movement quality, progressive loading
Advanced athletes	Adaptation slows, needs refined stimuli	Periodization, power/eccentric focus
Female athletes	Greater relative room for improvement	Same principles as males, avoid over-conservatism
Older athletes (>50)	Counteracting sarcopenia, neural loss	Maintain high-intensity stimulus, emphasize RFD
Adolescents	Prioritize movement technique and safety	Start with bodyweight, avoid early heavy loads

Understanding these differences allows athletes and coaches to avoid rigidly applying a single training plan to everyone and to make reasonable adjustments based on their own stage and conditions. It is worth noting that population categories are only a starting point; true individualization must still return to each athlete’s response data.

Practical Training Application

Translating research into a training plan requires answering four questions: which exercises to do, what intensity to use, when to schedule them, and how to monitor.

Exercise selection. For cycling and running, the most transferable exercises are multi-joint, closed-chain movements covering the hip-knee-ankle extension chain—squats, deadlifts, split squats, step-ups, and calf raises. For the specific goals of the difference between bodyweight training and machine training, corresponding accessory exercises can be added (such as eccentric components, plyometric jumps, or core stability work).

Intensity and sets. When maximal strength is the primary goal, 4–6RM with 3–4 sets per exercise and rest intervals of 3 minutes or more to ensure quality is recommended. If the goal leans toward power and RFD, lighter loads (30–60% 1RM) combined with “maximal velocity intent” should be used, as movement velocity itself is the stimulus. Below is an example weekly plan for the off-season:

Day	Main Training	Strength Plan Example
Monday	Endurance (long aerobic)	—
Tuesday	Strength (maximal strength focus)	Squat 5×5, Romanian deadlift 4×6, calf raises 3×8
Wednesday	Endurance (tempo/threshold)	—
Thursday	Strength (power focus)	Jump squat 5×3, single-leg step-up 3×6, core circuit
Friday	Recovery/technique	—
Saturday	Long endurance or race simulation	—
Sunday	Complete rest	—

Timing. To reduce interference effects, if both types of training are done on the same day, it is recommended to separate strength and high-intensity endurance sessions by at least 6 hours, or place them on different days; when they must be done on the same day, prioritize the ability that needs to be developed first (early in the season, strength often comes first; mid-season, endurance often comes first).

Monitoring indicators. Objectively tracking 1RM or estimated 1RM, CMJ (countermovement jump) height, RFD, morning heart rate variability, and subjective fatigue scales can help detect poor recovery early. When CMJ continuously declines or time trial performance stagnates, it should be treated as a signal to adjust dosage. Remember: strength training is the “auxiliary engine” for endurance performance; its purpose is to make you more efficient on the racecourse, not to lift heavier in the gym. Keeping this hierarchy clear prevents strength training from taking over and eroding the recovery resources of endurance training.

Local Application in Taiwan

Taiwan’s climate, terrain, and race culture bring several unique considerations to the application of the difference between bodyweight training and machine training.

Recovery management in hot, humid conditions. Taiwan’s summer heat and humidity can hinder recovery after strength training due to dehydration and reduced sleep quality. It is recommended to schedule heavy lifting sessions in the early morning or in air-conditioned indoor gyms, and to pay special attention to post-training hydration, electrolyte, and protein intake, avoiding stacking high-intensity endurance and strength stimuli on hot afternoons to prevent exacerbating interference effects.

Specific demands of climbing races. Classic Taiwanese races such as Wuling (west approach), Beijin Wuling, and the Yangmingshan routes (Fengguizui, Balaka) are known for long distances and massive elevation gain. These events place extremely high demands on strength for “sustained output at low cadence and high torque,” which is precisely the scenario where maximal strength and single-leg strength training can transfer directly. For challenges like Wuling with its 3,000-meter elevation change, lower-body maximal strength reserves allow riders to maintain pedaling margin on the latter steep sections, avoiding the dreaded “legs giving out first.”

Local training resources and seasonal rhythm. Gyms are widely available in most Taiwanese counties and cities, allowing cyclists to use the free weights area for squats and deadlifts; those training at home can achieve similar stimuli with kettlebells, resistance bands, and bodyweight single-leg exercises. For cyclists whose main training grounds are Yangmingshan, Beiyi, and the Central Cross-Island Highway, it is recommended to concentrate a strength specialization block during the off-season (typically the hottest summer period, unsuitable for long outdoor sessions), turning the hot season into a golden window for building a strength foundation, then returning outdoors in the cooler autumn and winter to convert that strength into actual riding performance. In this way, Taiwan’s unique seasonal rhythm can perfectly align with strength training periodization, becoming a strategic advantage for local athletes.

Common Myth-Busting

Many claims about the difference between bodyweight training and machine training circulate that contradict academic evidence. Let’s clarify them one by one.

Myth 1: “Lifting weights will make you bulky and heavy, hurting endurance.” Evidence shows that maximal strength-oriented training (high intensity, low volume) primarily produces neural and tendon adaptations, with limited increases in muscle cross-sectional area. In most studies, body weight did not change significantly, while performance improved due to increased efficiency.

Myth 2: “Endurance athletes should only do high-repetition, light-weight ‘muscular endurance’ training.” The opposite is true: high-repetition, light-weight training provides insufficient stimulus for neural drive and tendon stiffness. Many studies indicate that heavy-load, low-repetition training has better transfer benefits.

Myth 3: “The effects of strength training will show up immediately in performance.” Although neural adaptations are fast, tendon remodeling and muscle fiber conversion take weeks to months. Giving up too early is a common mistake.

Myth 4: “The interference effect of concurrent training will cancel out the benefits of strength training.” The interference effect does exist, but its magnitude depends heavily on training order, spacing, and dosage; with proper scheduling, strength and endurance can absolutely coexist and thrive. Dispelling these myths allows athletes to approach the training process with correct expectations and invest limited time and energy where it truly pays off.

Conclusion

Looking at the evidence reviewed in this article, the difference in effects between bodyweight training and machine training is no longer a question of “whether to do it” but “how to do it smarter.” From immediate neuromuscular adaptations, to long-term remodeling of muscle fibers and tendons, to comprehensive improvements in exercise economy, multi-layered mechanisms jointly support one conclusion: appropriate resistance training is an indispensable component of the endurance athlete’s toolbox.

Future research directions include predicting individual responses with genetic and molecular markers, clarifying the optimal interval for concurrent training at the molecular level, and developing new resistance training equipment with greater sport specificity. For Taiwanese cyclists and runners, the most practical course of action is: build a solid maximal strength foundation in the off-season, maintain it with the minimum effective dose during the season, and monitor throughout with objective indicators, allowing strength to truly translate into speed and endurance on the racecourse. Science has provided the direction; what remains is putting it into practice with every squat and every stand.

Related Reading

• Specific Benefits of Resistance Training on Bone Density: A Site-Specific Longitudinal Study
• Strength Maintenance in Older Athletes: A Study on the Minimum Effective Dose of Resistance Training Frequency
• Aerobic Training Conversion of Fast-Twitch Muscle Fibers: A Study on Muscle Fiber Transformation with Long-Duration Endurance Training
• Why Endurance Athletes Should Lift Weights: Mechanisms, Expected Benefits, and Unrealistic Expectations